Define the audience before researching topics
Identify whether each journey serves healthcare professionals, other relevant decision makers, patients, the public, recruitment candidates or corporate stakeholders. Then describe the question and the permitted purpose of the page. A corporate company profile, a disease-awareness resource and product promotion are not interchangeable content types.
The PMCPA’s current Code explains restrictions on prescription-only medicine promotion and audience separation. The responsible medical, legal and regulatory reviewers should determine how those requirements apply to the specific material and market.
Build an inventory, not just a keyword list
List web pages, PDFs, videos, image captions and linked resources. Record the owner, intended audience, market, subject, evidence references, approval status and review trigger. Include old campaign sites and downloads still accessible from search. A revised navigation menu does not remove an outdated PDF from the public web.
Group topics around genuine information needs and assign an existing or proposed destination. Where several pages answer the same question, improve the useful source instead of multiplying near-identical content.
Review the whole search presentation
- Page title and description: do they preserve the approved meaning?
- Headings and opening text: is audience and purpose clear?
- Images, filenames and alternative text: are claims consistent?
- Structured data and social cards: do they describe visible approved material?
- Links and downloads: can visitors reach material intended for another audience?
These are review surfaces, not a technical way around communication restrictions. An audience label alone should not be assumed to satisfy every access or promotion requirement.
Use a practical content brief
| Brief field | Decision required |
|---|---|
| Audience and territory | Who the page is intended to serve |
| Question and purpose | What the reader should understand or do |
| Evidence | Approved references and wording constraints |
| Review | Named reviewers and publication authority |
| Lifecycle | Review date, owner and retirement conditions |
For an illustrative disease-awareness page, the brief might define the public audience, the questions being answered and approved sources without turning the page into a product-acquisition landing page.
Make technical changes reviewable
Developers should know which changes are presentational and which could affect interpretation or access. Keep a record of proposed metadata, content and structured-data changes alongside the approved version. Test published pages and downloads rather than relying solely on a content-management preview. Establish a correction route when an old asset, unexpected snippet or broken audience journey is discovered.
Our published Servier case study describes relevant experience. It is not a compliance certificate for another website.
Measure usefulness within the approved purpose
Choose measures that fit the audience and legitimate objective: discovery of corporate information, access to an approved resource, successful navigation or qualified professional engagement where appropriate. Review search queries for unexpected interpretation and assess whether pages answer the intended questions. Keep source ownership and review cycles active after launch. A high-ranking page with inaccurate, out-of-date or misdirected information is not a successful outcome.
Common questions
Can we optimise metadata without another review?
Agree a review policy with the responsible team. Metadata can change the public presentation and meaning of material, so it should not automatically be treated as a harmless technical edit.
Does this guide establish compliance?
No. It is a content-planning framework. The responsible specialists must assess the actual material, audience, market and current requirements.